1. Haha, we were right about nuclear energy and we shouldn’t build any more reactors.

and

2. This is a shame but let’s be realistic and try to actually determine the relative strengths and weaknesses of building additional nuclear generating stations versus building other power generating capabilities.

As an initial matter, I want to express my complete disdain for the intellectual dishonesty and idiocy of these “Room for Debate” series; it isn’t journalism and instead tends to attract the most incessantly pedantic and idiotic comments and naysayers to each “debate.” It is also incredibly sensationalist and attempts to exploit every individual’s worst fears and insecurities to foster The Times’s readership. Now, of course, everyone does this, but at some point you have to criticize a news source that holds itself out as doing more.

But I digress; lets talk about the two general types of comments, noted above. The second is the rational, thoughtful, introspective, economist-type who seeks information prior to making important decisions. The first is everyone else in the real world. They are NIMBY (not in my backyard) types: reactionary and generally unthoughtful. Sometimes progressive, sometimes regressive, sometimes neither. They are the voters and, if we are honest with ourselves, they are each of us. I am economic and thoughtful about nuclear power, but I know that I am far less so about other things; for example, I have a significant fear of people with Mohawks.

What are you rational about? Irrational about? What do you react to thoughtlessly and without analysis? Without bias?